To achieve a political revolution – effecting a real change in society’s priorities – it is vital to have some hope that such a change is even possible. Latin America, and particularly South America, shows us that it is possible.
Voters in South America have elected presidents who were not the U.S. first choice. That is good news for the people of South America. As John Perkins’ book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man detailed, heads of state who were cozy with the United States arranged loans for U.S. contractors to develop projects that locals did not want or need, but which were paid for with resources – natural and financial – that otherwise would benefit the people.
The new presidents rejected this cozy relationship, and achieved nothing short of a revolution against a huge power that had dominated them for almost two centuries. The new leaders have not been perfect; it’s a huge challenge, like trying to change the engine of a car while it’s still running. And yet they have made great progress in their separate countries and in solidarity with other countries in the region. Despite setbacks and reversals, the legacy of revolutionary change has prevailed, in important areas such as healthcare, education, housing, and the environment, and in important systemic changes such as new constitutions and regional integration.
Keep in mind that the U.S. was literally an economic and military empire in the region, so you can bet it misrepresents what’s going on in South America now, from shamelessly calling Hugo Chavez a dictator, to reporting criminal activity by rich delinquents as if they were popular uprisings. To have hope for a real revolution, we need to look beyond the lies told by our government and corporate media.
Here is a summary of countries and time periods in which presidents were elected who were focused more on their own people rather than U.S. interests. Notice on the map how much of South America this covers, especially over the past 10 to 15 years.
Argentina 2003 to 2015
Bolivia 2006 to present
Brazil 2003 to present
Chile 1990 to present, except 2010-2014
Ecuador 2007 to present
Paraguay 2008 to 2012
Peru 2011 to present
Uruguay 2005 to present, except 2010-2015
Venezuela 1999 to present
Twenty years ago it was hard to believe that South America would become so independent from the U.S. that it would reject, from both U.S. presidents George Bush and Barack Obama, a free trade agreement for the Americas patterned after NAFTA. A real political revolution is possible.
–
Laura Wells is a political activist who blogs about the electoral and social revolutions in Latin America, and how they might apply to California and the United States.
Yes, we see the end results of the Chavez era, high poverty, high crime rate and an economy in the dumps and media controlled by the government. Venezuela is becoming an unlivable mess
I think the gains are bigger screen than the losses in Venezuela. Maduro is not Chavez, and between the tricks of the powerful in the country, and the inability of the government, they have arrived at the actual situation thre are more than one to blame, and not only Venezuela was always a rich country with an enormous proportion of very poor people, but those tricks of lack of food, milk, oil etc, they always had it. The government should had done their own supermarkets etc.
In other countries as Ecuador, the people never had it so good,, they tell you and they are having more children because of that ! In Argentina and Uruguay , the peasants have medical attention and retirement. Uruguay did a health reform better than USA within a year , and even if Philip Morris wants to destroy the country with its greed, the people are with the government.
It is not all a pot of roses, but it has been an incredible burst of well being in all the countries.
What were the gains under Chavez. he had an economy based on a commodity that has its ups and downs. Now no one wants Venezuelan heavy crude since there is plentiful light and cheaper crude. Chavez did nothing to diversify the economy, a policy tat would have provided protection when oil prices declined and would have expanded opportunity,. The country is bankrupt and and infected with poverty and crime
If you are interested in understanding the gains under Chavez, read articles in venezuelanalysis.com and then continue your research elsewhere to confirm or deny the articles.
Here are 3 recent links:
(1) “The Economist’s Latest Whoppers on Venezuela,” including this statement, “By 2013, the poverty rate had fallen by half. The Economist’s dishonesty in saying that poverty ‘stayed stubbornly static since 2000’ is amazing but such dishonesty about Venezuela dominates the international media’s coverage. The Economist need not fear being embarrassed by any high profile rebuttal appearing in any newspaper or magazine at any end of the political spectrum.”
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11840
(2) “Venezuelans Back Maduro’s Vision of a Socialist Future,” including this statement, “The poll shows that the overwhelming majority of the population (79 per cent) are in favour of the government’s aim – economic planning and some enterprise working together within an overarching socialist framework. They do not object to government working with multinational corporations as long as those corporations do not set the rules of the game.”
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11869
(3) “4 Steps To Fix Venezuela’s Economy” by an economist from the United States
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11862
As long as Venezuela depends on one commodity will suffer and thrive with the rise and fall of its price. Venezuela is a mess. I have been in many countries in South America and I would not fee safe for one moment in Venezuela. Even when oil prices were high, it was a mess with a high poverty rate,. Chavez trashed his much lie Mugabe did to Zimbabwe. Too bad you have rose colored glasses on.